TD balance thread

Discussion about the game and its default mods.
User avatar
AoAGeneral1
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:11 pm

Post by AoAGeneral1 » Tue May 01, 2018 10:36 am

Thats because it has a multiple queue system then compared to RA. MCVs at the price of 2k were spammed beyond believe and built incredibly fast that it was hard to stop.

The price currently remains at 3500$ because it hasn't been tested enough with team games.

User avatar
Sleipnir
Posts: 677
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2002 11:52 pm
Contact:

Post by Sleipnir » Tue May 01, 2018 10:48 am

Switching back to classic-style production is an option if multi-queue really is causing fundamental problems and players are looking for radical solutions to fix that.

User avatar
avalach21
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2015 8:01 pm

Post by avalach21 » Tue May 01, 2018 4:17 pm

AoAGeneral1 wrote: Thats because it has a multiple queue system then compared to RA. MCVs at the price of 2k were spammed beyond believe and built incredibly fast that it was hard to stop.

The price currently remains at 3500$ because it hasn't been tested enough with team games.
Sleipnir wrote: Switching back to classic-style production is an option if multi-queue really is causing fundamental problems and players are looking for radical solutions to fix that.
As a kid growing up playing C&C I always wished having multiple production buildings allowed simultaneous production like Warcraft 2 did for example.. It is definitely a neat feature to see it implemented, but to be honest it is a huge departure from classic C&C dynamics..

Clearly something isn't working out for TD which is a shame as it is an awesome game and should have an audience. I would play TD all day if there was an active player base.. I was always wondering if the multi-queue functionality is just too huge of a departure from what classic C&C should be. As a non-pro, I don't want to make any suggestions that upset the dedicated players and pros who are happy with the way TD works, but it just seems like it isn't attracting the audience/player-base that it should.

User avatar
Happy
Posts: 288
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:50 am

Post by Happy » Tue May 01, 2018 8:29 pm

avalach21 wrote: . As a non-pro, I don't want to make any suggestions that upset the dedicated players and pros who are happy with the way TD works.
huh? thats a different stance you have compared to the RA discussions? Considering Barf has been the consistent second best player in RA for a good year and a bit now.
Attachments
barf.PNG
barf.PNG (24.17 KiB) Viewed 661 times
huh.PNG
huh.PNG (66.99 KiB) Viewed 661 times
STOP:THINK:DESIGN

User avatar
avalach21
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2015 8:01 pm

Post by avalach21 » Tue May 01, 2018 10:01 pm

Happy wrote:
avalach21 wrote: . As a non-pro, I don't want to make any suggestions that upset the dedicated players and pros who are happy with the way TD works.
huh? thats a different stance you have compared to the RA discussions? Considering Barf has been the consistent second best player in RA for a good year and a bit now.
lol.. I have the same stance.. I am a self described "purist" and like to see the OpenRA mods reflect their source material as much as possible. The Hind should be on the Soviets as that is how the original game is and makes logical sense. In regards to TD, as interesting and cool as it is to see multi-build queues, I'm not sure if it's the best design option as it severely deviates from the original mechanics, and also seems to be causing some complexities when trying to balance the game.

TD seems to be a tight knit community so I would feel out of place making a radical suggestion like that out of the blue, especially when I don't get the opportunity to play it as much since it's nearly impossible to find a game. In regards to the Red Alert discussion.. it was an ongoing discussion that keeps coming up over and over again.. I didn't start it, so it seems appropriate to join in and share my thoughts..

Also sorry I'm not entirely up on the pro-scene.. I'm glad that Barf is a great player but I didn't really appreciate his condescending attitude towards the discussion. Just because you are a great player doesn't mean that you have the guaranteed best ideas or views on design. I'm sure there are a lot of incredible game developers out there who have designed some of the most cherished competitive games in existence.. and I'm sure many of them suck at their own games vs the best pros. It can never hurt to get well rounded input from pro players.. but no one pro's opinion is the end all be all.

thanks for digging up my old post tho for the "gotcha" attempt.. i guess?

CatGirls420
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2018 2:59 am
Location: Catia

Post by CatGirls420 » Wed May 02, 2018 12:48 am

Lol, Barf in that attachment Happy shared:

>implying quantity always trumps quality

Well, you can have 2 different people reach the same skill level and knowledge over 2 different lengths of time, one might take 3 years, another might take 6 months.

It's one thing to be knowledgeable, and it's another to be wise.

If you have the experience and authority that you claim you have, you should know this.

Also, it's not a bad thing at all to add a bit more diversity to the units. By doing that, it vastly increases the number of possible strategies, allowing more creative gameplay.

With such strict roles placed upon everything, the amount of doable strategies is severely limited, and does not allow for much creativity, if any at all.

I mean idk about you but it kind of get's boring doing the same thing every time, or similar to it. For example, build orders. "Muh build order teh 1337 h4x, use dis onlee, git rekt an fgts".

The game is already great, however, it could be so much better, and we need the community more active on these mediums to voice their opinions. Unless everyone agree's on taking ingame feedback.

User avatar
AoAGeneral1
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:11 pm

Post by AoAGeneral1 » Wed May 02, 2018 4:23 am

Realize that being a purist you will see that the CNC95 had its fair number of impurities as well. Going back closer to a traditional role is a nice idea but need to be careful when going this route in various forms.

Currently with 3500$ on the MCV its easier to do then compared to the 4000$ even being able to use them in 1v1 as I had seen Anjew do. But its also an investment cost meaning you can't crank them out without any backlash. (IE: Enemy going early herass.) In the older games with 2000$ no matter what you did it was nearly impossible UNLESS you went early herass every game. (Which negates the entire multiple build order selections.) Setting them to a single build order like RA would create the same problem with shared base placements and moving the MCV to plant refineries down at locations.

The theory behind multiple production queue is a single structure is built. If you build a structure from a second queue its 100% faster but its also costing you double the income to make this structure faster. (IE: two MCVs building a refinery turns into a 3000$ cost draining the money pool quickly.) This is slightly negated with the early investment of the MCV being at 3500$.

While lowering it to 3000$ is a nice idea im still paranoid about team games. While balancing around 3v3 is nearly impossible (With only very rare exceptions) its possible to do this with 2v2 games. This is where it has not been tested and in these team game situations I don't want the old "base wars" Happening again as it did with Zypres.

------------

Single queue system:

If we applied this to structures however, the question then comes up should this also apply to barracks and factories?

Me personally I say no under the major factor:

If a single queue is to be applied to units, then the entire economy system is going to need reworking. Because right now it supports multiple queues rather well. If its down to a single queue, then harvesters would need a nerf to prevent a large spike of economy off from two harvesters.

ZxGanon
Posts: 109
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:40 pm

Post by ZxGanon » Wed May 02, 2018 6:39 pm

SirCake wrote: Lol in RA every balance map author is happy if 10% of his change makes it into the release, and here in TD people are outraged if their changes get adapted??
*facepalm*
Cool story bro but if changes get molested and shitty implemented its better to not include them.

User avatar
AoAGeneral1
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:11 pm

Post by AoAGeneral1 » Wed May 02, 2018 6:50 pm

10 changes made were not butchered. They are implemented. The difference you are complaining about that I can see is Apache damage and MCV price. Which I have already explained to YOU is a needed test for team games.

Mesacer
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:03 pm

Post by Mesacer » Wed May 02, 2018 9:54 pm

Sleipnir wrote: Switching back to classic-style production is an option if multi-queue really is causing fundamental problems and players are looking for radical solutions to fix that.
I think the majority of the TD player base is not in favor of going back to single queue system. It is one thing that makes it different compare to RA. For me it was the major thing that made me favor TD over RA.

Going back to single queue system would also reduce macro play by a lot. The whole economics of TD would also need an overhaul if we went back to the single queue system.

Multiple queue system is not the issue, finding a fair price for the mcv is the issue.

CatGirls420
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2018 2:59 am
Location: Catia

Post by CatGirls420 » Wed May 02, 2018 10:24 pm

It would help if you guys acknowledged a big part of the problem: people defaulting to some type of aversion to change. People don't want to be bothered with having to break from the comfort zone, and experiment or make other strategies/tactics successful. Some people break from the norm though, but because of the strict roles on units/structures, it's difficult to increase the number of available strategies that lead to victory, and hinder's creativity.

Is there a way to prompt people through the OpenRA client to vote on ideas/decisions that the "maintainers" or whoever have the final say over?

User avatar
AoAGeneral1
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:11 pm

Post by AoAGeneral1 » Thu May 03, 2018 7:01 am

I would imagine that would require a server to store and collect information through the client to do such. If a system is to be in place I imagine the stat tracker would be the first to be worked on. (if possible)

maceman
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:49 pm

Post by maceman » Thu May 03, 2018 7:24 am

Well with multiple MCVs, you can get so many structures down so quickly with multiple build queues, which just makes having an extra MCV too strong in my opinion.

Its almost as good as having the same number of players on your team as you have MCVs, other than for support powers (although you only need to 'tech' one MCV, as in buy one comm centre and temple, and you have shared income which might counteract this, but I'm getting off track).

Although with other production queues, as they don't really affect scaling as much as they just allow you to focus on different unit types, these seem fine to me.

For example if you want to put all of your cash into buggies and bikes, or light tanks and artillery, or chem troops and mini gunners, you can. With a single queue system like RA you can't do this, you are limited (by production speed) to how much of your income you can spend on a unit type.

Maybe it could be worth trying a cheaper MCV, but having only one production queue for structures, and still allowing multiple for units (if this hasn't been tried already)?

GDave
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:42 am

Post by GDave » Thu May 03, 2018 11:18 am

maceman wrote: Maybe it could be worth trying a cheaper MCV, but having only one production queue for structures, and still allowing multiple for units (if this hasn't been tried already)?
I was going to suggest this too. Let's try reverting to a $2000 MCV, but with only a single build queue for structures.^

We could also try true classical production: you can only build one thing at a time, with no queues at all!


^ Maybe it'll even tempt 'pulse' back, only for anjew to make him leave again :/

User avatar
AoAGeneral1
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:11 pm

Post by AoAGeneral1 » Thu May 03, 2018 9:26 pm

GDave wrote:
maceman wrote: Maybe it could be worth trying a cheaper MCV, but having only one production queue for structures, and still allowing multiple for units (if this hasn't been tried already)?
I was going to suggest this too. Let's try reverting to a $2000 MCV, but with only a single build queue for structures.^

We could also try true classical production: you can only build one thing at a time, with no queues at all!


^ Maybe it'll even tempt 'pulse' back, only for anjew to make him leave again :/
This would be your best test https://resource.openra.net/maps/25979/

Its a near clone of CNC95 (Even unit stats). This will give an idea of some of the issues CNC95 faced when it had single queue systems. Bikes became incredibly strong and if you were lucky enough to tech with GDI then GDI steam rolls Nod. Mainly because a vehicle builds one at a time, and infantry applying the same as well.

It also can't be split. Either the game itself has single queues or multi queues.

Post Reply